The Court of Criminal Appeals has released it's favorable decision in State v Sweeton. In it the Defendant complained about alleged discovery violations and the use of a prior conviction from Georgia.
Discovery and Brady claim:
1) The officer scratched notes on a notebook and then transferred the information to his report. The Defendant claimed the State had withheld evidence by failing to produce the pocket notes. The Court said otherwise.
2) During cross examination the Defense brought up the idea that the signs of impairment might have been from a medical condition. During re-direct, the officer testified that the jail intake medical form was completed and the defendant denied any medical conditions. The Defendant complained that the State had not provided the jail intake form in it's discovery response.
The Court stated that the Defense attorney would have known about the medical intake form, if he had investigated his case and interviewed his clint. The Court wrote: "A brief conversation between defense counsel and the appellant would have revealed that the appellant did not have any medical conditions that would impair his performance on the field sobriety tests and that the appellant had filled out a form attesting that he did not require medical attention at the time of booking. “[T]he State is not obliged to make an investigation or to gather evidence for the defendant.”
3) The Court found the 10 page document from Georgia sufficient to prove a prior Georgia conviction. Read the entire case at: